WOW. Two Dutch “sexologists” have proposed that virtual #childporn INTENTIONALLY be made & provided to #pedophiles — as long as it is “made under strict government control” with a label! Thank goodness some people there have taken a firm stand against this! But disturbingly others have supported it. Hopefully their proposal will go nowhere, but it’s alarming that anyone would even take their proposal seriously for a second, as using child porn of any type does NOT “satisfy” a pedophile’s “urges” (that is the “catharsis myth”), but instead just FUELS their urges and encourages them to act out their depraved “fantasies” on REAL children! Read more below…

[Naharnet] A call by two Dutch sexologists for “virtual” child pornography to be legalized so as to assuage paedophiles’ desires has sparked fierce debate in the Netherlands.

“If you make virtual child pornography under strict government control with some kind of label explaining that no child was abused, you can give paedophiles a way of regulating their sexual urges,” Van Beek told Agence France Presse, calling for an enquiry or at least public debate on the issue.

Here is a reference on why the “catharsis theory” is unsubstantiated,” by Diana E. H. Russell, Ph.D., one of our founding and current Board members:

“Many still believe that exposure to pornography is cathartic or provides “a release of wishes, desires or drives such that they do not have to be acted on in reality” (Kelly, Wingfield, & Regan, 1995, p. 23). It is important to critique the catharsis theory before launching into Russell’s opposing theory. Similarly, it is important to review existing research on men’s propensity to sexually victimize children. This section provides a brief analysis of both topics.

CATHARSIS VS. INTENSIFIED DESIRE:

According to the catharsis theory, the repeated exposure of males to pornography “leads to a steadily decreasing interest” in the material (Bart & Jozsa, 1980, p. 210). This exposure is frequently described as a “safety valve.” As applied to child pornography, this theory assumes that repeated viewing of child pornography decreases viewers’ desire for sex with children. Hence, according to this theory, viewers of child pornography should be less likely to sexually victimize children.

The very influential but poorly designed experiment of Howard, Reifler, and Liptzin is widely cited as proof of the validity of catharsis theory (Diamond, 1980; Howard, Reifler, & Liptzin, 1991). Howard et al.’s experiment was based on a small sample of 23 white college males and 9 comparable controls. The researchers exposed the sub­jects and controls to a pornographic movie, then tested both groups for sexual arousal. The subjects were then exposed to adult pornography for 90 minutes a day for 15 days, whereas the controls viewed two non-pornographic movies over the same period. Twenty of the 23 subjects were then shown a third pornographic movie. Howard et al. (1991) found that “all subjects reported being initially stimulated” by the pornography, followed by “a marked decrease in interest in pornography as a result of the exposure” (p. 111).

It is important to note that the “subjects’ choice of pornography was severely limited” (Zillmann, 1989, p. 130). Hence, Howard et al.’s experiment only showed that a tiny sample of males became bored when exposed over time to a limited choice of material. Despite this, many pro-pornography advocates point to Howard et al.’s conclusion that all “legal restrictions to the availability of pornography” should be removed (p. 127). Indeed, this was one of the experiments on which the 1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography based its identical conclusion.

Zillmann and Bryant (1986) conducted an experiment based on 160 subjects that demonstrated the invalidity of Howard et al.’s conclusion. They recruited two samples: a student sample that included an equal number of males and females randomly drawn from undergraduate directories at two midwestern universities; and a nonstudent sample of males and females “drawn via random-digit dialing, with proportional sampling within all metropolitan exchanges” (p. 563). Zillmann and Bryant’s sample consisted of 20 subjects in each experimental condition.

Zillmann and Bryant gave both their male and female subjects a greater range of pornography to view than the limited materials available to the subjects in Howard et al.’s experiment. These researchers found that the subjects’ boredom after repeatedly viewing the same pornographic material motivated them to switch to viewing different and more extreme pornography, such as material involving the infliction of pain, violent pornography, and “uncommon or unusual sexual practices,” including bondage, sadomasochism and bestiality (Zillmann & Bryant, 1986, p. 577). Howard et al. had failed to consider this possibility, resulting in their invalid conclusion.

Although masturbation is not addressed in the experiments of Howard et al. and Zillmann and Bryant, this is a major goal of pornography. The ejaculatory pleasure obtained from masturbation intensifies the association between it and the pornography viewed, a theory confirmed by considerable experimental research (Cline, 1974; Osanka & Johann, 1989). Most males consider masturbation a very inferior alternative to sex with the type of individuals they desire. Thus, viewers may desire to act out the sexual acts depicted in pornography. For this reason and others, researchers have concluded that catharsis theory is clearly not substantiated (Sommers & Check, 1987).

Research aside, common sense and rationality unequivocally challenge the catharsis theory. Very few people would likely support a proposal to solve the problem of parents physically beating their children by having them watch movies that show parents battering and torturing their children. Why is it only in the case of misogynistic pornography that so many individuals—including a handful of researchers—believe that exposure dissipates the problem? The plain inconsistency and irrationality of the catharsis theory suffice to dismiss the notion that pornography serves as a “safety valve.”

~~ From the section, “Overview of Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse,” from the book “Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization” — Available online in full at the below link:

Anti-Porn Film and Slideshow. Plus Stop Porn Culture Info

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** A GROUND-BREAKING documentary about pornography is available! **
Visit the site HERE for
"The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality and Relationships."
See clips: I.e. Noam Chomsky on "choice" in porn.
See the whole film HEREright now at Media Education Foundation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*** The AMAZING and very eye-openingStop Porn Culturevideo slideshow "Who Wants to Be a Porn Star?" is available on the Internet! It exposes the true harsh reality of the porn industry and analyzes it with many profound and disturbing insights. To watch it right now click HERE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
** STOP PORN CULTURE Info **
-- NEW SLIDESHOW: "It's Easy Out Here For A Pimp: How a Porn Culture Grooms Kids for Sexual Exploitation." Available for download from Stop Porn Culture website.
---------
If you'd like to be get future SPC updates emailed to you, please request HERE.
********************************
The "Who Wants to Be a Porn Star?" slideshow is SPC's first line of offense in the battle to reclaim this culture from the misogyny, racism and brute power of
the pornographers. Please join SPC in the struggle for a violence-free world.
StopPornCulture.org
NOTE: Please contact SPC HERE for information about buying a copy of the slide show if you can't
attend a training.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About This Blog & AntiPornography.org

This blog was created so that people who wish to do something about the harms of pornography will have resources available to help them and will know that they are not alone. This blog is pro-woman, non -partisan, non-religious, (but supportive of constructive, non-discriminatory, and pro-woman efforts of people of faith), and is a project of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization AntiPornography.org. We support, encourage, and welcome constructive anti-pornography activism on the part of everyone, even if we are less than 100% in agreement with someone's views or approach.
You have the power to choose how to make a difference in your own unique way, and to do your part to make the world a better place for everyone. We hope that you have found some information and inspiration here that will help you do so.
Thank you for visiting. May you have much success in your activism, and congratulations on choosing to be part of the solution to a better world for everyone.
AntiPornography.org
****
Note: Donations to support further activism are gratefully accepted. (CC or PayPal.)

Disclaimer:

Just because a person, group, organization, book, website, video, or resource, etc., is linked to or presented here on this blog, it does not mean that everything expressed or done by that person, group, etc., is personally supported by AntiPornography.org. (No anti-woman views or actions are supported, regardless if the source of them identifies as anti-pornography or not.) A wide variety of resources are provided here for visitors. It is up to each individual person to examine the resources for themselves, and to decide for themselves what information is useful to them or not, and who or what to support or not, based on what is right for each individual and where they are currently at in regards to their views and activism. We support someone taking what is useful for them from here and other resources, and then ignoring or leaving behind the rest. We share what diverse individuals and groups are doing to fight against the harms of pornography so that you can get ideas from others and then proceed to do your own activism as you choose, not necessarily to have you support or do exactly what others are doing. Finally, if you have any concerns regarding the resources on this blog, please realize that this blog, its overall content, and the list of what a person can do about pornography are works in progress and subject to revision. (As the content is further examined and considered as time permits.) If you think something should be revised or removed, (because you feel it is anti-woman, or for some other valid reason), please feel free to respectfully comment and share your point of view on the matter.
Thank you for your patience and understanding in regards to all of the above. ~ AntiPornography.org
*********************
P.S. RE: COMMENTS: The same guidelines apply to comments here at this mirror blog as at the main blog. (The guidelines are stated there in the comment box.) To be specific, "Polite and respectful comments are appreciated. (Others will be deleted.) Thank you for sharing!"
******************
Regarding"Fair Use":
To the best of our knowledge the reproduction of any and all
non-original content on this blog is both acceptable and legal per the "Fair Use" doctrine of United States copyright law. That law allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. For more information, please see Wikipedia's "Fair Use" article, and the U.S. Copyright Office'swebsite page on the "Fair Use" doctrine. If any copyright holders have any concerns regarding reproduction of their materials here, please contact us in the comments section of the relevant post, so that we can make whatever changes are necessary to respect your rights and wishes. Thank you!

Please stay connected and help out the cause by subscribing at YouTube, sending a friend invitation at YouTube and MySpace, adding AntiPornography.org to your favorite pages at Facebook, and following at Twitter.